<link/> "Link:" (former: Proposal for Schema.org extension mechanism)

On 02/17/2015 09:33 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 17 February 2015 at 01:16, Kingsley  Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 2/16/15 4:48 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>
>> On 02/15/2015 08:48 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/15/15 12:19 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Schema.org addresses the needs of a community that wasn't optimally
>>> served by the generic Semantic Web meme. A lot of that (as already
>>> stated) has all to do with the incentives that arise naturally from the
>>> visible support of Google, Yandex, Yahoo!, and Microsoft (via Bing!).
>>> That's massive, and its negates the prescriptive specification problem
>>> that's dogged RDF from the onset. Ironically, if RDF was correctly
>>> pitched as a formalization of what was already in use, we would have
>>> reduced 17 years to something like 5, no kidding!
>>>
>>> For instance, Imagine if <link/> and "Link:" had been incorporated into
>>> the RDF narrative as existing notations for representing entity
>>> relations? Basically, Web Masters, HTML+Javascript developers, and the
>>> Microformats (now IndieWeb folks) would have be far less confused and
>>> resistant to the RDF -- especially as would have prevented the massive
>>> RDF/XML blob of confusion that ultimately obscured everything.
>>
>> You may find this discussion relevant:
>> https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
>>
>>
>> It even has a Linked Open Data URI:
>> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/https/github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
>> .
>>
>> Aside from the issues identified by the HTTP URI above, there's a
>> fundamental need to actually acknowledge the fact that <link/> and "Link:"
>> are notations (HTML and HTTP respectively) for representing entity
>> relationship types (relations). And by implication a notation for
>> representing subject->predicate->object statements --  which actually
>> demonstrates that RDF is a retrospective standardization of what was already
>> in use on the Web, as any standard should be.
> 
> This larger conversation has been rumbling along since Nov'96.
> http://www.w3.org/Architecture/NOTE-link
thanks Dan :)

> 
> For the purposes of this current thread can we nudge things back
> towards discussion of schema.org extensions?
I fully agree! Please accept my apologies for drifting away...